Rifle loony here
I’m not going to fork over for a NULA or fieldcraft

Seems to me that leaves me two options a short light rifle like a Remington 700 mountain, howa alpine, or Remington 7 or a carbon fiber barreled rifle like a Christensen arms ridge line or savage 110 ultralite.


Was curious What your thought on What the better option is for mountain hunting is
300 yard max range

A sporter barreled 700 and a lightweight/Edge/EH/HTS/etc stock is a very nice rifle with only the cost of the stock over the rifle. You can do the same with a 700 mt rifle or M7 and end up a little lighter but I prefer the balance of the sporter weight barrel.

I would add a used Kimber Montana to your list.

Tikka t3x superlite in 7mm-08................mic drop!!
Big Ed

This.

Finding an Alpine or Fieldcraft is getting tricky, and prices are right up there. Another guy here found the Alpine I was trying to avoid, a 6.5 with both the DM and a floorplate. Was just under $900 from Whittakers. All the ones I see on GB are DM only, often with the NS scopes, and pretty high. I assume LSI will sell you a floorplate, but that’s just more jingle, and good luck selling the DM setup.

Much as it pains me, I suspect a Tikka is the easy way out.

Kimber Montana for me, the Tikka stocks and fit are clunky for me compared to Montana, YMMV

I need to check my box. Not sure the DM arrived with the rifle. Hopefully it shoots well.

Original Remington 700 KS in .280 from the late 80s.

g

yeah on the 700 KS in 280

How light you want to go all up? What is the budget? NULA and Barret aren't exactly the same price range. You want to be sub $2k? $1.5K? Off the shelf? Semi-custom?

I’d cut a Montana long before I’d cut an original KS

Inexpensive- Savage lightweight hunter or storm lightweight. Should easily do 300 yards in numerous calibers.

Sensible- tikka T3 in whatever form you like.

If you’re a gambler- Kimber Hunter.

Me- cut a 700 sps ss to 20-21” in 7mm-08 and drop it into an edge or edge fill mtn rifle stock.

7lbs’ ish.....scoped.

Or 6 pounds scoped on a cut Montana.
How short and how light does OP want?

I should have bought NTO’s 700ks in 280

Just looking for something different to replace a walnut stocked 243 and 280 that I’ll shoot more often and carry further and worry less about

Had Both the tikka and Remington ideas, both would benefit from the EDGe stock (or manners )

Worried that once adding the stock (at least on the Remington ) is add a trigger tech and then a barrel and then be upside down on it, and then the next question - a used Remington 700 7 mauser or a new Remington 700 260

Tikkas are nice but something about them ......

Don’t need it today by any means just war gaming it

7# scoped and sling, balance on front action screw

Which scope? That's gonna make a BIG difference.


Okie John

Don't know how light you want to go. This is a Montana 7-08 (uncut) w/ VX2 2-7x33 and 4 rounds in mag, no sling, 6# 0.7oz. Sorry for the photo quality.

I don't own it anymore but for a long time I had a Model Seven in .308 with a Leupold 6x36 in Talleys. Edge stock. It was right at 6lbs scoped and shot really well.

Swarovski 3-9x36 or leupold 2.5-8x36 or something along those lines

Uncut 270 Montana for me. Tweaked with an aluminum trigger guard and a recoil pad from an Italian O/U shotgun. Oh, and a paint job. That's one ounce over six pounds.

6.5 CM Kimber MT. Hopefully factory ammo still available

I like it.

If the OP already has a M700 with 22" bbl, an Edge, Wildcat Composites, or other stock of that ilk would be a light set up.

What it's chambered in doesn't matter much--just use enough bullet is the trick.

Lot to like on the m700 edge route slightly cheaper than a Montana all I’ve heard about is the poor kimber ergonomics trigger reach and kimber roulette

An edge and a triggertech, even if bought well in the classifieds, is going to put you within a few hundred of a used Montana - BEFORE your barreled action.

Nothing wrong with the Montana trigger reach.

A known shooter from the classifieds would eliminate any “roulette”.

I know you said no fieldcraft but you can looking on gunbroker or classifieds here and get one from 13-1500... by the time you go after putting one together with parts is going to put you around that price range.

Your loss.

Actually if you can afford $1600 for a Fieldcraft youd never regret the 6.5 creedmoor. Barrett nailed the 6.5CM. at 300yds or less even on big bulls a 140 Partition is your huckleberry. Hate to admit I've been looking at the kimber hunter in .280 AI. Anyway at 300yds or less a 7MM-08 or a 6.5 CM with a 140gr Partition will flat out rock. A 120 TTSX in either would be my second choice.

Don’t believe everything you read on the www. I’ve seen people fuss over both the FC and Alpine on their ergos. I have both, and they feel just fine to me, though different. Maybe I’m just an unsophisticated fugg, but very seldom have I had an ergos problem with a rifle. Shotguns are another matter.

Anyway, handle rifles yourself before deciding.

Ergonomics depends a lot on the size of the individual. I'm 6'2" and the ergonomics, and trigger pull, work very well for me. I must be very lucky as well, cuz I beat roulette twice. Both my Montanas shoot better than the Rems I've owned.

I dug deep an bought the Fieldcraft 6.5 X 55 with the 24' barrel and am very happy with it. Most accurate rifle I've ever owned, shoots in the .2 & .3's , at first I couldn't believe it but it does it over and over with 120 and 140 Nosler BT's., way more accurate than it needs to be for a hunting rifle. If fits me well and IMHO it balances perfectly. My only bitch is I don't like safeties that do not lock the bolt down. My second choice is a tie between my Mod 70 FWT 270 Win a McMillian Edge or my Tikka 6.5 Creed. The only reason I bought the Tikka in 6.5 Creed is I like 24" barrels The mod 70 is a little heavier,but easier to hold steady. Kimber's don't fit me well, but have been good shooters for me. Get the Fieldcraft, over a life time it's only a few more bucks a year and they should hold their resale value.

BTW I find myself hunting with my Ruger # 1 or my Savage 99 FW more and more. They just have "Soul". Walnut just feels good!

I can't speak to the Fieldcrafts, but agree completely with the last paragraph...particularly the Savage 99Fs.

Yup. Money well spent. My 6 CM hasn’t done that well, but I see no reason to burn it up chasing tenths. Got another 6 and some others I can use to gratify my obsessions.

On days I want to obsess over the safety locking the bolt, I have others that do that too😜

This one should do ya !
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...tweight-30-06-stainless-synthetic#UNREAD

I’m running a pair of Kimber Hunters and am completely satisfied with their performance. 6.5CM & 7-08. They both shoot better than I do..... SWFA’s riding on them.
I pretty much like everything about them. Stainless steel, 22” tubes, composite stock that has great ergonomics for me. Excellent triggers! I wasn’t too sure about the DM on them, but have come to like the feature very much.
The FDE colored stock is the perfect canvas for a personalized paint job and if you want any added weight in the fore end thats simple to do with a little bird shot and epoxy.
The only add-on I’ve done to mine is a Ti Tac bolt handle from Chris84 here on the fire and a bit of paint......

I’ve shot Tikka’s and they’re a fine rifle, but I don’t care for long actions for short (308 based) rounds.
The Fieldcraft I handled (24” 6.5CM) was nice, but I wasn’t crazy about the stock and saw nothing to convince me that they’re worth we’ll over double what I can get a Hunter for..... ymmv

If you’re dwarfish , get a Montana


If you’re a bigger individual , a Fieldcraft is your huckleberry.

Kimber Montana is the obvious answer. Of newer vintage.

I’m neither, and they both work for me. I probably prefer the kimber stock by a small margin.


I think so too. OP needs to at least give them a consideration.

I am going to do some math here. Not just for the OP and others, but also to remind myself.

For sub-$1000 rifles, the Tikka T3 Lite is probably the best "light" rifle you can buy. I know that is an opinion, but it seems to be fairly well agreed upon by others. Assuming a Tikka will work you as far as ergonomics. Now for the math part:

I don't have a Tikka in .280, but I do have one in 30-06 so it is comparable. Added item on it is a Limbsaver recoil pad. Weights will vary 1-2 ounces in some cases, so we are just using this as a baseline. Also, I am ONLY comparing weight here. Not rifle operation or anything else. Just weight.

Tikka T3 Lite 30-06 Rifle bare with Limbsaver recoil pad: 6.18 pounds (6 pounds, 2.88 ounces)
With lightweight sling and 3 rounds in the magazine: 6.77 pounds (6 pounds, 12.32 ounces)
Stock with Limbsaver Recoil Pad: 30.93 ounces
Rifle in full hunting setup with Vortex Razor LHT 3-15x42mm scope, Modified Talley Low Rings (from Whittakers (16bore design)), and a scope sock: 8.16 pounds (8 pounds 2.56 ounces)
Scope is 19 ounces
Talley Rings are 2.25 ounces

So, we have that as a baseline. Let's start shaving weight!

For a thin-ish sporter barrel like the Tikka has, it will be about 1 ounce per inch cut. Tikkas in long action calibers (and my rifle specifically) are 23.4". So we can save 3.5 ounces cutting the barrel down to 20"
Fluting the barrel will save around 3 ounces according to the Tikka T3 Superlite weights and a conversation I had with Karl Kampfeld (already thin barrels so can't go too deep on the flutes)
Fluting the bolt with shave 1/2 ounce
Replacing the stock with a McEdge will save 4-6 ounces at best (probably less, not sure here because I have never weighed one; this thread says 3-4 ounces at most: https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...2645/re-tikka-stock-weight-vs-edge-stock). If you go for a super ultralite stock (like a Wildcat) you might shave 10 ounces.

For the above, the stock and the fluting will, at best, shave 1 ounce per $50. More likely 1 ounce per $75 - $100 though.


Now to compare to the 2 most common factory ultralight rifles, a Fieldcraft and a Kimber Mountain Ascent in 30-06 to keep it apples to apples:

Tikka T3 Lite - $600 - 6 pounds, 3 ounces
Fieldcraft - $1600 - 5 pounds, 5 ounces
Kimber Mountain Ascent - $1800 - 5 pounds, 5 ounces


The Fieldcraft will cost $1000 more for 14 ounces of weight savings. That is $71 per ounce of weight savings.
The Kimber will cost $1200 more for 14 ounces of weight savings. That $86 per ounce of weight savings.

Now, if we apply weight savings to the Tikka with cutting the barrel and fluting the barrel (assuming it will be done by the same gunsmith) and putting it in a McEdge stock we would have:

Tikka T3 Lite with fluted and cut barrel and a McEdge stock - $1500 - 5 pounds, 9 ounces
-- Assuming $500 for the stock and $400 for the fluting and cutting of the barrel and bedding the action in the McEdge; weight savings of 3.5 ounces from barrel cut, 3 ounces from fluting, and 3.5 ounces from McEdge

Dan,
All good, and all true, but a Kimber Montana is within 3 ounces of a mountain ascent - and can be had (used) by a patient buyer for well south of 1k.

Fieldcraft is worth every Penny, to say otherwise is simply foolish. You handled but did not own, Priceless.

According to Kimber, the Montana in 30-06 is 5 pounds, 10 ounces. 5 ounces heavier than the Mountain Ascent and 8 or 9 ounces lighter than the Tikka T3 Lite. My Tikka T3 Lite is 6 pounds, 2.88 ounces, but it also has a Limbsaver added and I don't know how much weight it adds.

My T3X 30-06 weighs 6 lb 2 oz. My Kimber montana 270WSM weighed 2 ounces less. It could not hang with the Tikka in the accuracy department, it went down the road.

I will admit I have been tempted by the Fieldcraft and Mountain Ascent in the 6.5CM. Less recoil and lighter rifles. Honestly though, that just tells me I am not spending enough time at the range. My Tikka 30-06 is braked so the recoil really isn't terribly much more than the 6.5CM. Especially if I shoot lighter weight bullets or lower powered rounds.

Got both of mine, brand new old stock (no threaded muzzle,which I prefer), in the box with all paperwork and hang tags, for $700 each on internet auctions. 7-08 and 257 Roberts. Both shoot .7-.8. More than I could have hoped, for a 6# hunting rifle all up.

Could be. We weighed a buddies 6.5 ascent and my 6.5 montana and they were 3 ounces different - but call it 5 to be certain. It’s still an expensive 5 ounces if sticking with the kimber platform.

Of those choices the 700 Mountain is the only one I'd consider. Christensen Arms I have little experience with, but what I do have wasn't totally positive, though if your max range is 300 yards I don't forsee any issues.

Kimber Montanas make a lot of sense in your situation and even if you get a "bad" one, there are simple fixes.

Double post

Kimber Montana in 25-06 with a Kahles 3-9x42 scope:

I chased light rifles for a long time. Thought I had perfection with a Kimber Montana that with a carefully chosen scope would still be a hair under 6 lbs. But the more I used it I found it to be too light. I'm now of the opinion that something between 7 to 7 1/2 lbs scoped is where I want to be with about 7 1/4 being perfect. That's not too heavy to be burdensome in even the roughest terrain, yet with enough weight for me to still shoot well in field conditions.

A Tikka and a Leupold scope gets me there out of the box with the least effort, expense and with exceptional accuracy. I have other rifles that I find more aesthetically pleasing but it's hard to go wrong with a Tikka. One of my favorites is a Winchester EW in 308 that I have a McMillan Edge stock on. I like it a lot, but I can buy 3 Tikka's for what it would cost.